If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

That is very difficult to say, since units and weapons are so specialised.

The SM-2 (and -3 and so on) are extremely powerful anti-air weapons, and so are the s-300 forts on the other side.

How are you having Aster/Sampson on a Type 45 stack up against the SM-2 (-3 etcetc) on an American Arleigh Burke class? I'm interested because at the end of last year the first sea lord was sounding particularly pleased when he mentioned in an interview/report that the Americans had had to ask us nicely to "shut down our radar because we were spoiling the training". The Type 45 while on exercise with an American CBG had apparently caused them some REAL problems due to the power of Sampson.

I'm afraid it's not just the Americans who were/are annoyed with the Sampsons performance. During my time at BRNC one of the DO's was a lead engineer on the type 45 programe and he often mentioned the radars capabilitys. FOST (flag officer sea training) hates the system just as much as the Americans!

The reply from the PWO to the FROST team was normally "umm sir you can't do that, it will still work"
And when the FOST would call for an air strike the rader controllers could see the planes from the moment they took off till the moment they were "shot down" a great system!

I'm afraid it's not just the Americans who were/are annoyed with the Sampsons performance. During my time at BRNC one of the DO's was a lead engineer on the type 45 programe and he often mentioned the radars capabilitys. FOST (flag officer sea training) hates the system just as much as the Americans!

The reply from the PWO to the FROST team was normally "umm sir you can't do that, it will still work"
And when the FOST would call for an air strike the rader controllers could see the planes from the moment they took off till the moment they were "shot down" a great system!

I'm off to Dartmouth on February the 13th (Girlfriend is *NOT* pleased at that date. Having to do a lot of things to make it up to her lol) for IOT, I'm entering as a WE and I would love to have the chance to work with the Sampson radar .

Think I may have asked this before but I can't quite remember... Will the MBDA meteor that is scheduled to replace AMRAAM for the RAF/FAA fleet from 2015 be in the game? I ask because it is quite a potent missile and an entirely different beast to AMRAAM.

In NWAC we have simplified reality a bit, so knowledge is pretty much universal among the players' units. If one unit's sensor can see the enemy, this means the weapon can see it. When missiles lose contact with target, they will take whatever action they can (active sensor, etc) to reacquire a target.

So, essentially, all missiles in NWAC have state of the art data links

In NWAC we have simplified reality a bit, so knowledge is pretty much universal among the players' units. If one unit's sensor can see the enemy, this means the weapon can see it. When missiles lose contact with target, they will take whatever action they can (active sensor, etc) to reacquire a target.

So, essentially, all missiles in NWAC have state of the art data links

Ah, fair enough . That is understandable I guess, would make the game hard to access for those who don't know huge amounts about the communication and/or sensor and/or data link capabilities of missiles and platforms. Will you make missiles that are known to have "state of the art" datalinks more accurate and more likely to score a killing hit than an older less state of the art missile to compensate then?

Yes, we'll score better missiles with higher hit percentages, and we'll also tweak the turn rate/agility to make it work out. We'll also make the sensors on the better missiles more powerful.

The biggest problem with simulating complex communication between units, weapons and sensors in such a game is not the simulation itself, but telling the player about how it works. I can only imagine how complex the UI would be if we were to explain to the player, without resorting to reading it in the manual, that "yes, you can see that target, but that weapon can't take data input from that source."

Yes, we'll score better missiles with higher hit percentages, and we'll also tweak the turn rate/agility to make it work out. We'll also make the sensors on the better missiles more powerful.

The biggest problem with simulating complex communication between units, weapons and sensors in such a game is not the simulation itself, but telling the player about how it works. I can only imagine how complex the UI would be if we were to explain to the player, without resorting to reading it in the manual, that "yes, you can see that target, but that weapon can't take data input from that source."

Well just give them a manual to read? You should always read the manual. Tis a stubborn and proud person who doesn't even at least flick through the manual

Yes, but if we make a game that requires reading the manual to play a good game, we've reduced our market to me, you and a few other guys, all of them hanging around on this forum.

Reading the manual is one thing. Having to check it before you can do anything is a bit rough.

Fair point... I was only jesting. I am aware that the majority of people prefer "pick up and play". Not catering your game to at least account for that is probably suicide in respect to sales. Which means no future Naval warfare titles

EDIT:

Rather than double post I thought I would highlight this. Obviously I appreciate that it is unlikely to make it into the original launch but it could be a very interesting addition to the armament of the Type 26 if they were made available for DLC. It's a supersonic SAM designed to use a datalink to enable the interception process to take place at the 500 mile mark as a counter the the speed of supersonic missiles and the inherent reaction time of all SAM systems.

Hey, firstly, congratulations on a game that looks like it will be truly awesome.
Secondly, I have a question regarding aircraft (Though I guess it applies to some naval craft as well).
How does you game tackle stealth?
For example some speculate that the PAK FA aircraft will have leading edge L-band radars because they work better against stealth fighters and similar targets.
Is this something that will have an effect, or is it handwaved for the sake of simplicity and accessibility?

We do handle stealth by calculating the radar cross section of each unit (which depends on its size and bearing). Each radar (as well as visual light sensors) will have a minimum angular size it can detect (which is again affected by environmental factors). Units with varying degrees of stealth will reduce the effective RCS dramatically, and only sensors with a very high resolution will be able to see it, and then on quite short ranges. We think this is a quite useful, if simplified, simulation of stealth vs high end sensors.